# Praise to Lady Gaga over "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy



## Chicken351 (Sep 22, 2010)

I can't find an article on this,(and I'm sorry if it is old news!) but I just saw on the news that Lady Gaga got up in front of senate in America to try and change the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy that is a part of the American Army.

For those who don't know, the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy is if a gay man in the army decided to "come out" then they would be immediately dismissed from the army.

I would like to say how shocked I am that a policy like this is even still in affect in this day in age. I would also like to give Lady Gaga a little round of applause for what she is doing trying to raise awareness about this out dated policy. She also showed up to the VMA with 2 soldiers who had been discharged from the army for announcing that they were gay.

Here is a video of her first appeal before she stood in front of the senate.

YouTube - A message from Lady Gaga to the Senate Sept 16 2010

She says that the law is "unconstitutional" and against "civil liberties", and although I am not America I stand behind what she says 100%


----------



## Aprill (Sep 22, 2010)

Yeah well that's all fine and dandy. As much as I love Lady Gaga, I would appreciate it if celebrities be celebrities and stop trying to be political walking around in the airport butt naked, and walking around with meat hanging off her body. The repeal was rejected and I am glad and I dont care what anyone says, 'dont ask dont tell' protects homosexual men...bottom line. Without it, they are outed and anything could happen.


----------



## perlanga (Sep 22, 2010)

I agree with April 100%, it's different when you have loved ones who serve the US military on the frontlines.

I LIKED Lady Gaga up until the whole meat thing. That was so stupid, she just looks like a dbag now.


----------



## Chicken351 (Sep 22, 2010)

I do have loved ones serving in the military in Afghanistan, and I have many friends who have been to Iraq. I don't understand how a law like this can "protect" someone. If we can be tolerant of things in everyday society, then what makes the military so special? Gays have equal rights, especially those who have put their lives on the line to fight for their country, and possibly something they don't even believe in.


----------



## perlanga (Sep 22, 2010)

^^^^ American military attitudes are extremely different from military forces of other countries. You have to see the guys in action to understand.


----------



## kayleigh83 (Sep 22, 2010)

Originally Posted by *Chicken351* /img/forum/go_quote.gif I do have loved ones serving in the military in Afghanistan, and I have many friends who have been to Iraq. I don't understand how a law like this can "protect" someone. If we can be tolerant of things in everyday society, then what makes the military so special? Gays have equal rights, especially those who have put their lives on the line to fight for their country, and possibly something they don't even believe in. I agree with this. There are laws protecting the rights of gay people in every day society, and although people don't always abide them, they're _expected_ to. It should be the same way in the military - in fact, if anything they should be held to a higher standard. Just burying our heads in the sand with a don't ask, don't tell policy may seem on the surface like it's protecting gay people, but to me it just really seems like a cop-out and a way of saying that homophobia is OK if we just don't talk about it.
And although we may be not _quite_ there yet, this policy will never get us any closer.


----------



## Chicken351 (Sep 22, 2010)

Fair enough. It's just my opinion. And thank you Kayleigh, I'm not trying to attack your military or how it works, I just thought with society the way it is and the expectations of every day people that our military should be leading by example.


----------



## Dragonfly (Sep 22, 2010)

Originally Posted by *perlanga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif ^^^^ American military attitudes are extremely different from military forces of other countries. You have to see the guys in action to understand. Canada's Armed Forces is hardly different from United States military.We have are share of *bigoted homophobes* too.

I should know - I served with many. And I also served with a gays and lesbians that did great jobs as soldiers - infrantry included.

Well guess what folks - around 1990, Canada's constitution now states that lesbians and gay men are free to serve in Canada's Armed Forces without fear of being held back from promotion - or from being discharged.

I'm surprised that no one commented on my post in the thread:

'Don't ask, don't tell' policy ruled unconstitutional

Has anyone stopped to consider how many gays and lesbians have given their lives (or sustained serious injury) so that the United States has the freedoms they love today?

First World War

Second World War

Korean War

Gulf War

Iraq War

Afghanistan War

and any other conflict/bombing I might have neglected to mention, such as Beitrut. My sincere apologies.

Its absolutely pitiful that the "boys wills be boys" mentality or perhaps the "old boys network" would be more important to the United States, than the sacrifices that were made by Americans for Americans

It's easy to bash gays/lesbians while they are serving. What do you say to them once they have died for your freedom?


----------



## Chicken351 (Sep 22, 2010)

YES! There are so many other wars to consider as well. And I'm sorry, but you can't tell me that the American military is that different to any other in the world. If that is the case then the American Military has a lot of catching up to do in terms of tolerance and equality.


----------



## emily_3383 (Sep 22, 2010)

Originally Posted by *Dragonfly* /img/forum/go_quote.gif Has anyone stopped to consider how many gays and lesbians have given their lives (or sustained serious injury) so that the United States has the freedoms they love today?
This is the same country who is freaking about a "Mosque" thats not even a Mosque its a community center. Im not surprised about this. Americans dont like to be made uncomfortable. This is just how I feel about everything thats been going on.

Originally Posted by *Chicken351* /img/forum/go_quote.gif YES! There are so many other wars to consider as well. And I'm sorry, but you can't tell me that the American military is that different to any other in the world. If that is the case then the American Military has a lot of catching up to do in terms of tolerance and equality. Yeah, I also wonder how its different.


----------



## perlanga (Sep 22, 2010)

I only speak for families of American Military infantry troops. I've said before and I will say again, I will not support any law that that makes the troops uncomfortable. This law is being struck down for a reason. The US military is the most powerful military force on the planet for a reason, it's current laws and practices seem to have done good so far, in my opinion if it's not broke don't fix it!


----------



## Chicken351 (Sep 22, 2010)

Originally Posted by *perlanga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif I will not support any law that that makes the troops uncomfortable. I'm sorry, but how uncomfortable do you think this law make the gay community who serve in the military feel?


----------



## xjackie83 (Sep 22, 2010)

I'm a US citizen and I love Lady Gaga and I hate don't ask don't tell. How a law that openly discriminates against gay and lesbian soldiers in the military is still around is flabbergasting. Freedom for all!


----------



## Dragonfly (Sep 22, 2010)

Originally Posted by *perlanga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif The US military is the most powerful military force on the planet for a reason, it's current laws and practices seem to have done good so far, in my opinion if it's not broke don't fix it! The US military lost both the Vietnam and Iraq wars.
And the US military's history of friendly fire is absolutely atrocious.

Here's an example:

The 4 dead and 8 wounded Canadian soldiers who were bombed by the USAF in 2001, in Afghanistan. Two F16 pilots attacked the Canadians as they were conducting a live fire range exercise. The pilots claimed that they were "under fire" from the ground. The aircraft were flying at 20,000 feet, and the ground fire was at ground targets, with small arms weapons, not anti-aircraft missiles. No infantry weapon can reach 20,000 feet of altitude.

The AWACS controller told the F16's to "hold your fire" but they didn't listen, and four young Canadians died as a result.

Just one modern example of how dangerous it is to be near U.S. army troops when you are a "friendly force".


----------



## perlanga (Sep 23, 2010)

^^^ Umm, I don't think I have ever heard someone say the US lost Operation Iraqi Freedom, I live and work on a Marine Cops base and speak with officers constantly, believe me when I tell you NOBODY HERE IN THE US (perhaps with a few exceptions) believes we lost that war, Saddam Hussein is dead after all isn't he, the last combat troops just left Iraq and it was on their own terms.

Friendly fire occurs everywhere, not just amongst US armed forces, it's one of the many tragic occurrences and dangers that is part of being a troop.


----------



## Aprill (Sep 23, 2010)

The US lost the war in Iraq? LOL!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dragonfly (Sep 23, 2010)

When the US invades a country and then retreats after thousands of us soldiers die and tens of thousands of us soldiers are left with serious injuries - obviously the US lost. Hell, even US citizens admit that it was a useless war and a staggering defeat.

Curious - What did the US win by invading Iraq?

If the US wanted Saddam, they would have taken him during the Gulf War. Apparently, George Senior prefered him to be alive - blood for oil maybe?

Saddam's assassination by the US was a mere smokescreen to cover up the sheer stupidity of Bush.

Originally Posted by *perlanga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif Friendly fire occurs everywhere, not just amongst US armed forces, it's one of the many tragic occurrences and dangers that is part of being a troop. The us is notorious for friendly fire. And when innocent civilians are also killed by the troops that are there to protect them - that is also included as friendly fire. That or murder - take your pick.
Either way - incredibly irresponsible, sloppy and embarrasing by such a powerful military force.


----------



## emily_3383 (Sep 23, 2010)

They certainly didn't win. I for got why we were there in the first place. Oh yeah WMD.


----------



## perlanga (Sep 23, 2010)

I just asked a SME (subject matter expert) on the topic, my bf who is an infantryman in the Marine Corps and went to Iraq in 2008, if the US lost the Iraq War. His reply was "LOL, if we didn't win then who did?".



I had no idea that you "lose" a war if troops die or are injured in any way. Using that baseless logic the US lost The American Revolution, the Spanish-American War, the Mexican-American War, WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Operation Desert Storm, and Operation Iraqi Freedom and somehow there was no clear winner the Civil War since both sides had fatalities, gee the US has a really bad track record at winning wars.


----------



## Darla (Sep 23, 2010)

The first Gulf War (1991, the one mandated by the United Nations) can be spun as a complete victory if you wish, but the reality is Sadaam Hussein remained in power and nothing was really resolved except that Iraq was driven from Kuwait. A complete victory hardly! It just set the stage for future events.

GW Bush in an effort to redeem his father created a pretext for the the Iraq War. The claim was it was over "Weapons of Mass Destruction" which we all learned was completely false. It is completely wrong to look at the Irag War solely from a military perspective. I have a lot of respect for the troops who have served and they are doing their job. They don't create policy and because they executed their role as per their orders their perspective can only be and should be that they were successful -- they won. But what did they win?

Is Iraq truly safer than before the Iraq war began? Now you still have open civil war between military factions which may never be truly resolved. Is more oil actually flowing today since we all know oil is behind all of this policy? Not necessarily.

Does the average Iraqi actually think the war benefitted him? As they think about the millions of people that died during the fighting, not just the Iraqi army that evaporated under fire, but the innocent civilians. and now to only have sporadic electrical supply. Is the quality of life really better? Maybe if you were among the oppressed by Sadaam it is. Other than that most Iraqis would not be so sure.

And as for the US, look what that war did to us. It cost billions to wage this war. It bankrupted the US and I am convinced led to a lot of the financial instability that we have had for the past few years.

So you may think the US won the Iraq war but I thought it was a bad idea when it started, didn't accomplish anything and the end results are still to be seen. Iraq may yet prove to be a bigger disaster than when Sadaam was running the country. So did the US really win anything?


----------



## emily_3383 (Sep 23, 2010)

I think if you ask a servicemen/woman they will not say that we lost the war. I think alot of Americans really have no idea if we "won" or "lost" because a lot of the people dont know why we went to war in the first place. Also what about Afghanistan? I think I would have to leave the country to see whats happening because I know im not getting that info from American tv.


----------



## Dragonfly (Sep 23, 2010)

Originally Posted by *perlanga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif I just asked a SME (subject matter expert) on the topic, my bf who is an infantryman in the Marine Corps and went to Iraq in 2008, if the US lost the Iraq War. His reply was "LOL, if we didn't win then who did?".

I had no idea that you "lose" a war if troops die or are injured in any way. Using that baseless logic the US lost The American Revolution, the Spanish-American War, the Mexican-American War, WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Operation Desert Storm, and Operation Iraqi Freedom and somehow there was no clear winner the Civil War since both sides had fatalities, gee the US has a really bad track record at winning wars.

You lose when you retreat - exactly what the US did from Iraq.
By the way, there are always casualties - soldiers and civilians - when a war occurs. These do not dictate if a win or lose occurs.

While you are at it - throw Somalia into your mix of US military failures.

The US lose of Vietnam was already mentioned.

The US has a so-so record of winning wars. WW1 and WW2 and the Gulf war and Korean war were won by a coalition of armies, not just the US.

Please give credit were credit is due.


----------



## perlanga (Sep 23, 2010)

Just because a war is a bad idea in the first place it doesn't result in a loss.

The US is leaving Iraq because the want to, not because they have to!


----------



## Darla (Sep 23, 2010)

Originally Posted by *perlanga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just because a war is a bad idea in the first place it doesn't result in a loss.
The US is leaving Iraq because the want to, not because they have to!

The Iraq war was a bad idea because nothing good could come out of it. It was a loss in the larger sense. Ever hear of the expression winning the battle, but losing the war? It means you can win every military skirmish out there, but it is questionable whether you can transform Iraq and change the hearts and minds of people living in the Middle East. 
That is why there is so much spin regarding Iraq. You can choose your own success criteria and claim we won something while I think in the long run it was a bad idea and we lost something, not to mention any focus on the war in Afganistan.

On the second statement:

Hey we could have left a lot earlier if you want to use that logic!

Declare victory and then go home.







(photo taken May 1, 2003 btw)


----------



## Andi (Sep 23, 2010)

I agree that people in the military (or ex military) will be biased when you ask them whether or not a war is won or lost. Heck, a lot of the population is biased as well. It hurts to say "we lost war XYZ", because it implies that all the deaths didnÂ´t serve some "greater cause" (=winning the war or at least making a change). I think thatÂ´s what many families of dead soldiers tell themselves to relieve the grief, that their family member died as a hero because he/she was serving for their country.

That being said, my husband was a bit homophobic, fairly religious and excessively patriotic while on active duty, which is when I met him. Now that heÂ´s a civilian again I can see his views slowly changing on a lot of issues. I actually believe this happens to a lot of people when they get out, while still being proud of what they did, they also start seeing the negatives instead of being completely biased.

Originally Posted by *perlanga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif The US is leaving Iraq because the want to, not because they have to! I think they have to, because the public wonÂ´t support the war for very much longer. It has already cost too much money and lives, and there is not enough good that has come out of it to justify this war going on forever


----------



## Dragonfly (Sep 23, 2010)

Originally Posted by *perlanga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just because a war is a bad idea in the first place it doesn't result in a loss.The US is leaving Iraq because the want to, not because they have to!

The US is withdrawing from Iraq because they have no more money to buy bullets or fuel for tanks.This was determined when Obama won the Presidency over McCain.

The US was successful at executing Saddam Hussein. But at what cost?

Ask the thousands of American families that lost a family member over there. Ask the countless thousands that lost a limb or suffered a sever head injury, spinal injury, post traumatic stress disorder.

And the financial cost to Americans is beyond the billions.

The US accomplished nothing else by invading Iraq, then with withdrawing - in other words, losing.

Thousands of soldiers dies, countless soldiers returned with severe injuries and you now have a huge debt that you'll be lucky if your children's children will finally pay it off.


----------



## perlanga (Sep 23, 2010)

Even if there are money issues, no opposing forces are making troops leave, once again they are leaving on their own terms.

The idea that a war is lost if it's a bad idea to go into in the first place is not a belief I share with you.

I've also spoken with troops that say there are happy they came home, because they saw no "action" whatsoever, that their deployment was quite boring. It was time to leave, when there's nothing left to do what's the point of staying?


----------



## Dragonfly (Sep 23, 2010)

Originally Posted by *perlanga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif Even if there are money issues, no opposing forces are making troops leave, once again they are leaving on their own terms. The US military is leaving because there is no more money available for them to buy bullets or fuel for tanks.
The US invaded Iraq on the premise the there were weapons of mass destruction hiding, just waiting for Saddam to use them.

Turns out that was all a lie.

So tell me what the US military won by spend billions of tax payers money and allowing 1000s of troops to die and thousands more to be severely injured?

The US military is coming home with its tail between its legs - it did not accomplish what it said it was going to - and had to retreat from Iraq.

Hence, the US military lost, plain and simple.

"The idea that a war is lost if it's a bad idea to go into in the first place is not a belief I share with you."

Who cares what we think - ask one of the 1000s of dead soldiers what they think.


----------



## Aprill (Sep 24, 2010)

Show me a specific article that says we cant afford bullets. We are leaving Iraq because we have a President that knows nothing about serving his country, therefore, does not understand why we are there, therefore he is withdrawing. We have been there for the past few years, not necessarily because of war, but because we are trying yo train their (Iraqi) troops because since the crumbling of the Hussein regime, they dont know how to hold their penises up to piss over there, yet along protect their own people.

Troops that died are not a sign that we lost a war, it is simply what happens in war, the attacks on the US came from people that did not want us there, nothing more different than in any war situation.

This is not a prostitute session where business was handled, the money was left on the dresser and everyone leaves. 50,000 troops will remain there. There will be 7,000 private security people there military trained might I add (blackwater) that will still be working in Iraq. The training program will cost the US 800 million, security contractors and equipment...another 1 billion. Broke. Damn straight. Cant afford to do this and that? Probably. Can we just leave and say we are leaving because we are broke? Never.

What did we win? Nothing. If we came home with some sort of trophy, you would still put the US down. So what do you (non-Americans) want? And while we are at it, lets not act like the US went in balls out...the UK was there too!

I am noticing alot of yip yap in this thread and not enough fact. Do a little research.


----------



## perlanga (Sep 24, 2010)

Originally Posted by *Dragonfly* /img/forum/go_quote.gif The US military is coming home with its tail between its legs - it did not accomplish what it said it was going to - and had to retreat from Iraq.

Hence, the US military lost, plain and simple.

"The idea that a war is lost if it's a bad idea to go into in the first place is not a belief I share with you."

Who cares what we think - ask one of the 1000s of dead soldiers what they think.

You keep referring to dead troops, troops die in EVERY WAR!!!!!!!! That's what happens when you go to war people get killed.
Strange how you think the US lost the war yet the previous government (Saddam and the Baath party) is no longer in power and the current one what set up by the US.

The insurgency will always be around, that's why the current Iraqi military was trained by the US military. I know this for a fact I see see Afghan/Iraqi officers constanly here at the base.


----------



## Dragonfly (Sep 24, 2010)

I keep refering to troops dying because *they died in vain*. Didn't need to spell that out but I guess I do.

Originally Posted by *Aprill* /img/forum/go_quote.gif they dont know how to hold their penises up to piss over there Ooh that's classy. Dd you find this when you did research?


----------



## Darla (Sep 24, 2010)

ok facts with a citation:

Notes and Sources: Cost of War Counter

To date, the total cost of war that has been allocated by Congress is $1.09 trillion, with $749.9 to Iraq and $337.8 to Afghanistan. The numbers include both military and non-military spending such as reconstruction. Spending includes only incremental costs, those additional funds that are expended due to the war. For example, soldiers' regular pay is not included but combat pay is included. Potential future costs, such as future medical care for soldiers and veterans wounded in the war, are not included. These numbers do not account for the wars being deficit-financed or that taxpayers will need to make additional interest payments on the national debt due to these deficits.

These numbers are based on an analysis of legislation in which Congress has allocated money for war and research by the Congressional Research Service (latest report) which has access to Department of Defense financial reports. An article offered by the Strauss Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information offers greater insight into the problems of truly knowing how much has been spent on the Iraq War or other military operations. Other NPP tools on war costs include the NPP Database and Cost of War to your Community which uses total war costs associated with numerous towns and counties across the country.

During the Bush administration, the majority of war funding was allocated through emergency supplementals. Beginning with the fiscal year 2010 budget, most of the war funding was included in the core budget appropriations process. Congress passed additional supplemental appropriations in July 2010 to fund the 30,000 troop surge in Afghanistan announced by President Obama in December 2009.

does quite a number on the national debt don't you think. I still stand by my previous statements.


----------



## Aprill (Sep 24, 2010)

Originally Posted by *Dragonfly* /img/forum/go_quote.gif I keep refering to troops dying because *they died in vain*. Didn't need to spell that out but I guess I do.
Ooh that's classy. Dd you find this when you did research?

I sure did



Classy is my thing. You can kill the personal attacks because I did not attack you and you dont want a piece of me. Good day!


----------



## Dragonfly (Sep 25, 2010)

I am pro-military and I am proud to be a retired soldier.

My views are not just from what I have read in the media, but from my experience as to what it really means to sign the dotted line and give my life for my country.

Hearing about another's military experiences does not even rate with being an actual soldier.

There has been a lot of interesting discussion. Just because I don't agree with what everyone has written does not mean I haven't been educated.

Obviously this thread has taken an ugly turn.

I won't be contributing any more to it...


----------



## emily_3383 (Sep 25, 2010)

I think its been going quite well. Lets not take things so personal.


----------



## Darla (Sep 25, 2010)

Aprill, I am a bit surprised you started out by criticizing Obama for his handling of the Iraq war. I would remind you that he started neither the Iraq War nor the Afghanistan War. That would be his predecessor, George W Bush who I recall had no military experience either (save his Texas Air National Guard stint which had its own issues). So Obama wasn't a war hero, neither was Ronald Reagan, or Bill Clinton. There is no pre-qualification for Commander in Chief to have served.

Barack Obama stated that while he was campaigning that he thought the Iraq war had been a mistake and he would phase that out and that he thought the Afghan War needed more resources. Imagine that! he kept two campaign promises. Everyone who voted for him should be happy for that.

As for manpower in Iraq the figures I found was that at its peak (during provincial elections in 2005) there were 160,000 combat troops in Iraq. So even if it is the number mentioned is correct that is a substantial reduction in the force structure in Iraq. Granted something like 40,000 more troops were sent for "surge" in Afghanistan. This is not trivial.

I mentioned the costs earlier and these are not inconsequential. We seriously spend a whole lot of money. and wasted a lot as well.


Lost &amp; Unaccounted for in Iraq - $9 billion of US taxpayers' money and $549.7 milion in spare parts shipped in 2004 to US contractors. Also, per ABC News, 190,000 guns, including 110,000 AK-47 rifles.
Missing - $1 billion in tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces. (Per CBS News on Dec 6, 2007.)
Mismanaged &amp; Wasted in Iraq - $10 billion, per Feb 2007 Congressional hearings
Halliburton Overcharges Classified by the Pentagon as Unreasonable and Unsupported - $1.4 billion
Amount paid to KBR, a former Halliburton division, to supply U.S. military in Iraq with food, fuel, housing and other items - $20 billion
Portion of the $20 billion paid to KBR that Pentagon auditors deem "questionable or supportable" - $3.2 billion
and who did Halliburton have close ties to? None other than former VP Dick Cheney.

Yes this all had to stop. Seriously we could have continued to drain money like we have, but you don't realize how much of the money that the US spends on acquisitions have been set aside because of the war.

---------------------

The strain on soldiers and their families has been substantial. Some soldiers have had to endure 3 or 4 extended tours in Iraq when they were originally told they would only have to do one and recruitment is way down for the Army as a result. This is another way the Government has exploited its troops. If these soldiers had gone to Iraq for yet another tour they certainly have no guarantee that would make it back alive. There are currently 200 troops who have left the US for Canada to avoid being sent again (US Today In Canada once more, U.S. troops fleeing a war - USATODAY.com). For most people I had spoken to it was never a matter of boredom just survival.

There were just soooo many reasons this was a bad idea before it started. and its even worse looking at what was wasted monetarily and in terms of human life over all these years. and yes Aprill no trophy for the US either......


----------



## Aprill (Sep 25, 2010)

I have to criticize that he just wanted to withdraw so abruptly. I do agree that the war was baseless, but I like to compare it to slapping someone in the face, and then just thinking you can walk away and they wont retaliate. That's how I feel about the withdrawal process. I fear retaliation on our soil. I also think has taken way to long to train these Iraqi soldiers, seems like its been going on for 3 years now.

My husband served this country, 3rd infantry 337 cav, they have one of the most successful combat records of any US Army division. Even he does not agree with the withdrawl.

As far as my comment concerning Obama, experience never hurt, that's all I can really say about that.


----------



## perlanga (Sep 25, 2010)

"Hearing about another's military experiences does not even rate with being an actual soldiers."

Hearing about a former Canadian soldiers experience that did not go to Iraq on a deployment doesn't even rate with a US Marine that went to Iraq and served and came back with a severe injury and who's company lost 20 Marines.

Funny how some people think they know better than those who ACTUALLY served on the frontlines?


----------



## Dragonfly (Sep 25, 2010)

Originally Posted by *perlanga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif Funny how some people think they know better than those who ACTUALLY served on the frontlines? Funny how those that like to listen to stories think they know the most.

For the record, a select few Canadians did serve in the Iraq war...

Iraq is not the only place where a soldier could experience combat.

I'm curious - tell me where and when I was posted throughout my military career...


----------



## perlanga (Sep 25, 2010)

I don't see you speaking of your tours in Iraq, which is the we are typing about.

The Marine I speak of is my bf of 5 years, I've been with him the whole time throughout his military career, and in no way does he believe he went to Iraq in vein. He proudly speaks of the experience even with the severity of his injury.


----------



## Darla (Sep 25, 2010)

I have never been to Iraq and nor do I plan on going. I have talked to dozens of people who have done everything from pilot helicopters to clear unexploded IEDs (road side bombs). They are all proud people who had served well, but almost to a man they just said this was craziness, the war made no sense, there was no objective. You could do your job to the best of your ability and it was never going to make a difference in the end.

The Iraq war will go down as much of a giant mistake as the Vietnam war was.

I don't believe this thread was ever a test of who went to Iraq or not or knew or dated someone that did. It was about a person, just like all of us who expressed their opinion. The only difference being that this was Lady GaGa so somehow for some people that seems to be important. But she's free to say whatever she wants too, just like all of us. I just think this thread has gotten way too personal for some people. Good night.....


----------



## Johnnie (Sep 25, 2010)

I really don't know if DADT is good or bad considering I don't know much about it. But it's always good to hear both sides.


----------



## shyiskrazy2 (Sep 25, 2010)

We are never leaving Iraq. The us is becoming much like the Roman Empire. We have an imperialistic regime bc they have oil which like blood for a countries economy. The infrastructure over there was never bulit properly w no electricity, running water, or sewage for half of the people. The us being there has ruined the quality of their lives (unless the were Kurds). That is why they hate us. Our policies stink in regards to Muslim/Arabic nations.

"II. More than 1000 US Bases and/or Military Installations

*

The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g.*C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for*the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.

*

In this regard, Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing's 2002 Map 1 entitled "U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of 'Permanent War'", confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries.*

The US Military has bases in 63 countries.*Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001*in seven countries.*

In total,*there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.

These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million*acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory,*the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007)."

in addition, we will continue to have more wars over oil or natural resources in the future. We will not run out of money bc the federal reserve just prints up more and sells treasury bills to companies who then use the cash to buy stock.

Obama is a puppet celebrity and doesn't make any decisions for himself. Congress has been bought and paid for by the megacorporations.

The mainstream media is full of lies and the military indoctrinates you w blind patriotism.


----------



## Dragonfly (Sep 25, 2010)

Originally Posted by *perlanga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't see you speaking of your tours in Iraq, which is the we are typing about. I didn't go to Iraq - I served from 90 to 94, when the Gulf War occured. No, I didn't go there either. Only Canadian military doctors, medics, pilots and high ranking officials were sent there. I did request to go but I didn't have the skill set that was required.

I thought we started this thread to talk about gays/lesbians in the military. Interesting how it changed to Iraq tours.

Since we aren't able to see the others side, why not sign up and serve your country. Uncle Sam is always looking for a few good women.

Then you can decide for yourself what it is like in Iraq (or possibly Afghanistan) and you can tell us about your own tour of duty...


----------



## emily_3383 (Sep 25, 2010)

Originally Posted by *shyiskrazy2* /img/forum/go_quote.gif We are never leaving Iraq. The us is becoming much like the Roman Empire. We have an imperialistic regime bc they have oil which like blood for a countries economy. The infrastructure over there was never bulit properly w no electricity, running water, or sewage for half of the people. The us being there has ruined the quality of their lives (unless the were Kurds). That is why they hate us. Our policies stink in regards to Muslim/Arabic nations.
"II. More than 1000 US Bases and/or Military Installations

*

The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g.*C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for*the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.

*

In this regard, Hugh dâ€™Andrade and Bob Wing's 2002 Map 1 entitled "U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of 'Permanent War'", confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries.*

The US Military has bases in 63 countries.*Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001*in seven countries.*

In total,*there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.

These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million*acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory,*the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007)."

in addition, we will continue to have more wars over oil or natural resources in the future. We will not run out of money bc the federal reserve just prints up more and sells treasury bills to companies who then use the cash to buy stock.

Obama is a puppet celebrity and doesn't make any decisions for himself. Congress has been bought and paid for by the megacorporations.

The mainstream media is full of lies and the military indoctrinates you w blind patriotism.

This.


----------

